Agenda item

Demolition of existing residential dwelling and construction of four residential dwellings.

The Senior Planning Officer, Paul Hopper, gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Senior Planning Officer, PH advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for demolition of existing residential dwelling and construction of four residential dwellings and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions set out within the report.

The Senior Planning Officer, PH noted that Councillor L Brown, a Local Member, had requested the application be considered by Committee on the basis of issues relating to access and highway safety.  He added that the application site was south of Durham Johnston School and there was an existing dwelling at the south-east of the site.  It was noted that there was a paddock alongside the application site that had permission for 3 dwellings.  Members were referred to photographs, plans and elevations and noted the proposed access from the A167 and egress via the back of Newcastle Terrace, a proposed one-way system.  The Senior Planning Officer, PH noted that the Highways Section had noted no objections to the proposed one-way system and proposed improvement works.  Members noted there were no objections from statutory or internal consultees.

The Senior Planning Officer, PH noted objections had been raised by the Local Member, and 9 letters of objection had been received at the time of reporting the matter at Committee.  He summarised the objections, as set out in full within the report, including on issues relating to: parking; the suitability of the access, impact upon the A167, use of the one-way system to create a “rat-run”; loss of residential amenity; separation distances not being met in relation to the properties yet to be built, those with permission on the paddock adjacent the application site.

The Senior Planning Officer, PH noted that the principle of development was acceptable, being in a sustainable location and with an acceptable level of development.  In terms of residential amenity, the Officer noted that while some of the separation distances to the proposed properties was less then stated within Saved Policy Q8, it was noted that these were in cases where windows were not directly facing one another and view would be limited as a result. 

The Senior Planning Officer, PH noted that the development would not be prominent from the A167 and scale and layout would not detract from the scale and form of the area.  He added that while the proposed access was narrow, a one-way system would be in operation, controlled by a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) which was conditioned, as were the resurfacing and street lighting as set out within the application.  Members noted that there were 2 additional conditions proposed by the Council’s Archaeologist in terms of site investigations and that subject to those, and those set out within the report, the recommendation was for approval.

The Chairman thanked the Senior Planning Officer, PH and asked Councillor L Brown, a Local Member, to speak in relation to the application.

Councillor L Brown noted that she felt, once again, there was an application which failed to convince on its highways policy.  She noted Members would have seen from their site visit that Garden Villa was originally at the end of an un-adopted cul-de-sac which was now fenced off.  She added that the brownfield site closest the road had an application approved for 3 houses with access from a new road to the north of the footbridge.  She noted that access to the application site was to be provided south of the footbridge by way of a one-way system over land which was not owned by the applicant through the un-adopted rear of Neville Street/Newcastle Road.

Councillor L Brown noted that, as with the previous application, Redhills Lane was just outside the Durham City CPZ.  She added this brought with it the problems of commuter parking plus, due to its proximity to the station, potential of long-term parking by rail passengers.   She explained that Redhills Lane, and the surrounding streets, were also used for parking by Durham Johnston School staff and students as their car park was too small.  Councillor L Brown added that the block of flats further up the lane, Archers Court, had only one parking bay per flat and no visitor parking, thus compounding the problem. She noted that in addition plans to bring in further parking restrictions because of the problem of double parking were well under way.  She added that it was also a rat-run out of Durham with almost continuous traffic in the early evening, hence the speed bumps.  Councillor L Brown asked, once parking was constricted on this un-adopted road, where are residents of Neville Terrace and Newcastle Road supposed to leave their cars without causing an obstruction or committing a parking offence.  She added they also had a very real fear that the one-way street will be used by motorists to avoid the lights and some of the congestion around this area as has happened on the western side of the A167.

Councillor L Brown noted that Saved Policy T1 stated that permission would not be granted for a development that significantly affects occupants of nearby properties. 

She stated that surely the removal of parking facilities due to this development is a significant effect.  She added that there was also the inconvenience to the present residents of a new roundabout route along the A167 in order to unload at the back of the houses.

Councillor L Brown referred to Paragraphs 64 and 66 of the Committee Report, where it was noted that the application breaches not only Policy T1 but also Policies Q8 and H13 regarding separation distances and residents’ amenity.

She also noted that when the rear road is tarmacked no reference was given to any type of surface drainage for a road that currently had an impermeable cover.  She added that she felt this surely was in breach of saved policy U8A which asks for satisfactory disposal of surface water.  Councillor L Brown noted that given that the gardens of Newcastle Road slope down from this road there was a very real possibility of flooding after heavy rain.  She added that she would therefore ask that should the application be approved, Condition 14 be extended to cover surface water from the newly resurfaced access and egress road.  She noted this would also be in accordance with Part 14 of the revised NPPF guidelines.

Councillor L Brown noted Condition 5 had no mention of appropriate one way signage and added she would like this to be mentioned in a revised condition, as Durham County Council should not be paying for it.

Councillor L Brown noted at if the project was given permission she could foresee that the upkeep of the road becoming a bone of contention.  She noted that while not a planning matter she would expect this road to be brought up to adoptable standards and would be lobbying for it to be adopted by the Council as it would then become a through-route.

The Chairman thanked Councillor L Brown and asked Mrs A Deighton to speak in objection to the application.

Mrs A Deighton noted that she and her husband owned the adjacent site with permission for 3 dwellings, adding that they would also be occupying one of the dwellings.  She added that they did not object to development of the application site, rather they objected to the loss of residential amenity that would be a consequence of the separation distances not meeting the requirements of policies within the City of Durham Local Plan.  She referred the Committee to slides she had prepared by her architect, showing the application development in context with the development of 3 dwellings already with permission.  She explained the 3d models within the slides had been generated to scale.  Mrs A Deighton noted how the application would be overbearing, protruding 2m in front of a bay window of the development with permission and block views and sunlight.  She noted a 10m shortfall in terms of minimum separation distance between a side window and a gable end.

Mrs A Deighton noted that while not face-to-face as such, the configuration of the sites meant that there was minimal offset and there would be a high level of intrusion, noting floor to ceiling glazed doors on both bedroom and lounge of the proposed property already benefiting from permission. 

She added that a separation of only 13m from an application property to the garden amenity space of a proposed property on the adjacent site meant there would be an unacceptable loss of privacy and sense of overbearing.

Mrs A Deighton added that there was also issues in terms of the impact of the access and parking, setting a precedent and asked that the Committee refuse the application in light of the issues highlighted.

The Chairman thanked Mrs A Deighton and asked Mrs C Zambon to speak in objection to the application.

Mrs C Zambon noted that she had great concerns as regards the proposals for the rear lane.  She added that one-way access from the A167 was not the whole story and that there would be access at the rear lane, currently a cul-de-sac.  She contended that connection of the rear lane to the A167 would change the character of the rear lane and have significant impact upon the surrounding area. 

Mrs C Zambon noted that, at approximately 4.7m to 4.8m wide, the rear lane would not be wide enough to support a pavement and also this width would be further reduced in terms of the cars that are parked along the rear lane, to around 3.3m.  She noted that this was contrary to Saved Policy T1 in terms of safety, including issues in terms of refuse vehicles and being unable to negotiate a sharp right-angled turn.  Mrs C Zambon asked who would enforce in terms of the proposed one-way system.  She added that the report referred to benefits in terms of housing and the economy, however, she noted that the Council could demonstrate that it had a 5 year housing supply and therefore it was not required and the impact upon the economy would not be significant.  She concluded by noting that the impact on existing residents of the proposed one-way system would be significant.

The Chairman thanked Mrs C Zambon and asked Mr M Hawthorne, the applicant to speak in support of his application.

Mr M Hawthorne noted the application represented a small, unique, bespoke development with experts from the Council’s Planning, Archaeology, Highways and other departments all agreeing that the proposals were acceptable.  He noted that parking provision was being met on-site and there would be signage denoting “residents only” in terms of the access.  In respect of refuse collection, he noted this would not differ from existing arrangements, with bins to be taken to the end of the street for operatives to collect, empty and leave for collection, aided by the proposed new tarmac surface. 

Mr M Hawthorne noted that the homes were for families, not student properties or bed-sits, and Durham was in need of more family homes.  He noted the support of the planning team in terms of the application, and while he accepted the properties may not be to everyone’s taste, they were family homes.  He noted his family’s connection to the City and noted that the application site was in a highly sustainable location.  He added that there would be a significant contribution in terms of Council Tax from the proposed properties and the proposals helped meet the objective of “seeing families thrive” and therefore asked Members to support the Officer’s recommendation for approval.

The Chairman thanked Mr M Hawthorne and asked the Senior Planning Officer, PH to address the points raised by the speakers.

The Senior Planning Officer, PH noted in reference to the drainage of the rear lane subsequent to the proposed tarmacking, Condition 5 within the report would include disposal of surface water. 

He added that the Applicant had made reference to signage in relation to “residents only” and he also noted that a TRO would be in place.  The Senior Planning Officer, PH explained that a physical construction, for example “crocodile teeth” could be used to ensure that the one-way system was not passable in the reverse direction.  In relation to the separation distances, the Officer’s reasoning was set out within the report, noting not directly facing windows.  The Senior Planning Officer, PH noted that in terms of ongoing maintenance, the land was unregistered and therefore this situation would not change and that in terms of economic benefits, there would be construction jobs and it would be for the Committee to decide on the weight to attach to those jobs.

The Chairman thanked the Senior Planning Officer, PH and asked Members of the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor O Temple asked if Members were to approve the application, would it be possible to condition a physical impediment to using the one-way system in reverse, along the lines of the “crocodile teeth” as mentioned.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development, Neil Carter, referred to the Highways Section representative asking how they envisaged the TRO regime.  The Principal Highway DM Engineer noted that physical engineering could include such “teeth” and that if on private land then it would be for the owner to install and maintain.  He added that the TRO would take out a right turn on to the A167.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that in respect of Councillor O Temple’s suggestion it may be possible to amend Condition 5 to ask for more information and details, however, it would not be possible to insist upon its implementation because that would depend upon the detail of the scheme which Highways found acceptable that the relevant time and in any event the report and Officer stating that the application as submitted being acceptable to the Highways Authority.  Councillor O Temple noted he felt this was unsatisfactory, however, upon receiving the advice he felt that including such an amendment asking for details was better than no amendment at all.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted this could be included within the second part after “…shall include but not be limited to, the installation of street lighting…” to include “physical measures to prevent two-way access”.

Councillor P Jopling proposed the application be approved, subject to the amendment suggested by Councillor O Temple and the two additional archaeology conditions as referred to by the Senior Planning Officer, PH.  Councillor R Manchester seconded the proposal.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions detailed in the Officer’s report, and amended Condition 5 as proposed and with the additional conditions relating to Archaeology as referred to by the Officer.